Casey Anthony is G U I L T Y. Is everyone else just as outraged as I am over the totally unfounded verdict?!
Also I am using this blog to officially endorse Michele Bauchman. Voting for Mitt Romney based on his religion only makes you a BAD CITIZEN. Some say he is a smart business man that knows how to adapt to fluctuating political climates and new information. Personally, I think he isn't to be trusted. I also have never liked that fact that he treats his religion as a potentially damaging theology with no pertinence to his political standpoints. Bauchman, however, is a staunch conservative with platforms and a religion that she has no trouble standing by. She is obviously pro-life, for the family unit, and all about small government, all points that Romney has been somewhat shady on. I also agree with her stance of phasing out medicare and social security.
Ms. Anthony may be guilty, but that's not the point. The point is that the prosecution failed to prove the circumstantial evidence and so she was acquitted. The jury may have done the wrong thing, but they did it for the right reasons and that is the protection that our legal system affords. (p.s. I love disagreeing with you...wait for my Mitt Romney post:)
ReplyDeleteWhile I admittedly don't know much about Michelle Bauchman, your analysis of Mitt couldn't be farther from the truth. While I agree that the biggest problem with this country is the deterioration of the family, it is not up to the government to fix that. Therefore your claims that Michelle will make a better president because she is presumably more family oriented seems a little misguided.
ReplyDeleteThe more important point about small government would be one of Romney's strongest points, in an indirect way. One of the government's main responsibility and one at which they are failing miserable is fiscal policy. There isn't a better candidate out there than Mitt with regards to fiscal responsibility. His platform includes balancing the budget by eliminating many entitlement programs, thus shrinking the government.
Concerning Casey Anthony, I would probably agree with you except for the unwavering intuition I have that she is 100 percent guilty. Had she been truthful rather than lead the police on a goose hunt then there might have been more substantial evidence. In the pre-CSI days I think the mounds of circumstantial evidence would have been enough to warrant a conviction. Beyond reasonable doubt does not mean that no doubt exists but rather there is no other logical conclusion.
ReplyDeleteAs for Bauchman, what I meant when I said Bauchman would protect the family unit is that she is against gay rights. While it isn't the government's job to fix the family, the very least it could do is preserve the legal definition of marriage.
I agree that Romney's best talking point is his fiscal acumen, which is why I think he should head a committee to advise the president on government spending :)
Unwavering intuition, which is similar to a gut feeling and not legally viable, is completely different from unreasonable doubt, which suggests that the preponderance of evidence leaves no reasonable doubt of guilt. I think most would agree that she is a horrible mother and even less of a person, however, a conviction of guilt for 1st degree murder could mean the death penalty. That requires more than unwavering intuition. Our legal system is set up to make it very difficult to sentence someone to death. We would rather let the guilty walk than accentually sentence the innocent to death.
ReplyDeleteClever argument for Mit. Unfortunately that's not how it works. Otherwise it would be better to have Mit as president and appoint Michelle head up a committee on preserving the family :)